Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-12-31/From the editor
"You wouldn't recognise a fact if it bit you in the ass"; "eat your 'fucking' crow"; "[you are] an ignorant idiot"; "If you get testicle cancer or become a transsexual, then estrogen ... could enlarge and improve the mammary function of your breasts."; "are you a pedophile?"
"I'm sorry if that's considered a personal attack, but it's just true."
In the impersonal, detached Colosseum that is Wikipedia, people find it much easier to put their thumbs down. As such, many people active in the Wikimedia movement have witnessed a precipitous decline in civil discourse. This is far from a new trend, yet many people would agree that it all seemed somehow worse in 2012.
On the English Wikipedia, this is most often witnessed on the administrators' noticeboards, but the decline was perhaps most visible in the featured article process, where the various talk pages were disrupted with personal disputes, sockpuppetry, and gladiatorial nastiness. These attitudes have been increasingly evident in many corners of our encyclopedia.
Some people have talked of a new-year détente between the warring parties. While this could result in greatly reduced tension—assuming everyone involved agreed, which they have not—new disputes arise every day; détente alone will not solve the problem. Yet there is still resistance from editors: for example, there is a certain attitude that the quality of Wikipedia is low, and editors need to be kicked into improving it with harsh language.
Those attitudes should be rejected. Have we not tried that for the last several years? Do any editors believe it has worked? We have to come together and improve the health of our community. Even Rome eventually found that gladiatorial fights were detrimental to their society.
Wikipedia is what we, the community, make of it.
Take it upon yourself in this new year to make it a better place.
The Signpost's volunteers wish all of our readers a Happy New Year. We hope 2013 brings everything you wish of it.
— The ed17
Discuss this story
Yes! Civility for all in 2013! GoingBatty (talk) 05:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sociologically speaking, civility is a fundamental problem with any project like Wikipedia because it is based on a culture of honor (vs. a culture of law). This sounds odd given all the "laws" (rules) we have, but the reason is there is no good structure in place to enforce the rules of civility - there are no police to call, we are mostly left to defend ourselves, which by definition is a culture of honor. This creates the Gladiatorial atmosphere (less romantic: a poor kid from the projects who shoots someone over a pair of sneakers). It might be possible to fix but I suspect a large body of editors would resist a police contingent that enforces civility rules. Cultures of honor, once established, are notoriously difficult to change into cultures of law because many people resist it since don't trust the enforcers whom they see as impinging on their freedoms. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hear! Hear! --Surturz (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EgoArticle Candidate seems to create a lot of problems. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]This is the worst example of the civility problem that I have seen on Wikipedia. It was delivered by a sitting arb, has zero to do with the FA process, and is further discussed here. Kiefer gives above additional examples of civility issues that had nothing to do with the FA process, and even involved the person writing this piece. The person writing this opinion piece is also discussed on my talk page as one of the aggressors on FA-related talk pages.
On the other hand, here is an example of a recent FAC discussion: a nominator refers to a reviewer request as "complete garbage", a FAC delegate reminds the nominator that "we can do better than responding to our reviewers like this", and the nominator strikes the imprudent remark. Pretty bad stuff that, no !?!? Particularly when viewed relative to the arb issue and how it was handled.
After more than a year of assaults by multiple socks and returning users breaching CLEANSTART to visit old grudges on the FA-related pages, and at the very time that so many editors are trying to move on and reinvigorate the FA pages, we have one of the very people involved in the negativity using his position on the Signpost to claim these issues are "perhaps most visible in the featured article process"-- taking a gratuitous dig at a process where he has been one of the aggressors. Surely you can't support an involved aggressor using his position here to once again bring the FA process into unjust ill repute, just as efforts to move on are taking hold everywhere? Yes, it is time for everyone to take a deep breath and move on; that includes this kind of hatchet opinion piece that has come to characterize the Signpost since the loss of Ral315 and SageRoss. MANY folks want the issues that have been visited upon the FA pages to stop now that one sock is blocked, one is banned, and a returning user revisiting old grudges has at least for now moved on. Perhaps the Signpost can do the same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good start, Ed; I've asked Kiefer on his talk to drop the Aruba thing from here forward, and perhaps we can all do more of same. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]